Sentences with phrase «case under existing law»

... [B] y choosing arbitration, the parties and their lawyers are giving priority to the decision of the specific case under existing law over the refinement of legal principles over time.

Not exact matches

See also Lucy Barbour, «Competition watchdog ACCC head Rod Simms (sic) denies claims an «effects test» would be «economically dangerous» (ABC Rural, 18 August 2014), in which the ACCC Chairman defends the ACCC's proposed effects test (and is also reported as saying that the current case against Coles was brought under the unconscionable conduct provisions rather than under s 46 because the misuse of market power prohibitions is a law that exists only between competitors...)

There will be a type of law, there will not be much more freedom than there exists under capitalism, unlike what will be the case in communism - the stateless, classless society.

(d) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has no State or local law prohibiting such act or practice, a civil action may be brought under subsection (a): Provided, That the court may refer the matter to the Community Relations Service established by title X of this Act for as long as the court believes there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining voluntary compliance, but for not more than sixty days: Provided further, That upon expiration of such sixty - day period, the court may extend such period for an additional period, not to exceed a cumulative total of one hundred and twenty days, if it believes there then exists a reasonable possibility of securing voluntary compliance.

In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.

«In the case of the United States, the new target is pushing the limits of what can be done under existing law.

No such insurance yet exists and is not expected until August 2015, unless the LLLT works for a law firm, in which case the LLLT is covered under the firm's policy.

You'd want to consider that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled (see here and here)-- after the Akzos case — that legal privilege does in fact generally exist for in - house counsel under Dutch law.

there is nothing under EU or domestic legislation, or existing case law which prohibits the interpretation this way, and

Cass Sunstein, in an article on animal rights, answers unequivocally that animals can not be granted standing in their own right under existing American laws, since Congress has reserved standing to «persons», and many laws expressly reserve enforcement to persons, not animals (In the most famous of these cases, a dolphin named Kama was found not to have standing to challenge a transfer of its location under the Marine Mammal Protection Act: Citizens to End Animal Suffering and Exploitation v.

Having examined the foundational weaknesses of the Bell coalition's website blocking plan (existing Canadian law, weak piracy evidence, limited impact) and its negative effects (lack of court orders, overblocking, ineffectiveness, violation of net neutrality, vulnerability on freedom of expression grounds, higher Internet costs, privacy risks), the case against the plan enters the final phase with several posts on how it fails to meet the requirements under the Telecommunications Act.

A recent case in Ontario considered this for what I believe to be the first time and found that such actions indeed attract liability under the existing framework of Canadian tort law.

The EAT noted that the existing case law on «without prejudice» did not apply to the issue of protected conversations under s. 111A.

On existing human rights case law if the government did proceed with its plans, Neil Parpworth, De Montfort University, says: «I would have thought it likely that if the new Bill of Rights sought to protect essentially the same rights as those protected under ECHR (and therefore HRA 1998), the body of human rights jurisprudence which has arisen under the Act will have an ongoing relevance and importance.

In many cases, the existing rules will either not apply or will apply in a way that was unintended as the advancements in question were not contemplated under the original laws.

I've seen what happens to many of these people in court, when they stand up and try to explain to the judge how they are «Mennonites» who can't be found guilty under the Constitution because it's a violation of their rights dating back centuries before America existed, or when they challenge the judge's right to preside over their case because of some arcane law, or that red light cameras are unconstitutional because they do not get to confront their accusers, again, I cringe, because I know what's coming.

In that case the High Court held that native title rights defined under the NTA must be rights and interests created by the Indigenous laws and customs that existed before the British acquisition of sovereignty over Australia.